austin3515
-
Posts
5,766 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
111
Everything posted by austin3515
-
Are you not concerned that future guidance might reflect a more limited interpretation?
-
That is an excellent article, thnank you for sharing (and writing it!). That;s what Derrin was saying as well (of course not surprising you would say the same thing), But this is exactly the kind of language that gives me pause (from the article): If I tell a client that they can just fund their 2019 profit sharing and they'll be golden, and then that turns out to be wrong, I'm really really in deep doo doo. Don't I need somethig more concrete before giving that advice? Larry, are you currently advising your clients to take this approach based on the guidance currently available?
-
Thats what is so frustrating. The stakes are incredibly high. We need something more concrete. I'm not even comfortable assuming that the reference to "paid or incurred" is intended to extend so far as to include the 2019 contributions. a literal interpretation, sure. But it just seems so outside the scope of the plain intention (i.e., the plain intention is clearly focused on those 8 weeks). Is it "impossible" for them to come back at this stage and say the retirement contributions have to relate to the 8 week period? I feel like we're not at a point yet where that is out of the question. And I keep getting questions about defined benefit plan contributions. I can;t imagine they are not eligible, but some more guidance would sure be nice. Is it too much wishful thinking to assume we will get more guidance on this?
-
So today on Derrin Watson's Fireside Chat through ERISApedia he said that the 2019 contributions can be funded in the 8 week window and count towards the loan forgiveness. Has anyone seen an article that goes through these rules in detail? He also said you could fund the 2020 profit sharing to a suspense account for allocation after year-end. I'd love an article from an FIS or a Groom Law or Sal Tripodi, etc. that can give us something reliable in writing that we can then use to counsel people and have it as comfort that the premiere experts have opined.
-
If you read the applicable sections of the ERISA Outline Book that would be a good start. There actually is not nearly as much to know as in the 401k space, but if you don't know even one of the important things to know, then you can really cause trouble. Who can be eligible and the taxation rules just to name two that come to mind.
-
Got an interesting question just now. Can we have a policy that says if you are ever an HCE then you will always be part of the 403b and you will never go back to the 401k. The purpose would be to avoid people flipping back and forth between the two plans. I can't think of anything that would prevent it. I guess the only issue would be coverage. So if I have NHCE's not covered by the 401k plan, I need to pass a coverage test. But if we're talking about a larger organization where the NHCEs dramatically outnumber the HCE's (as happens to be the case on the inquiring client) that should be a non-issue.
-
As the saying goes, it doesn't matter till it matters. Meaning when you get sued the first and obvious conclusion is that the problem was you wore both hats. In other words if your moral compass doesn't rule it out, your fear of giving your legal adversary low hanging fruit should do the trick.
-
People can often find a way to justify why its ok for them make more money :).
-
Just to be clear for the casual reader ".03" does not apply to this question. An audit is by definition an "attest" service. Basically what it means is the auditor is "attesting" to the fact that the financial statements are free of material misstatement. Anything with an "opinion" page is the result of an "attest" service.
-
that's exceedingly stupid. Sounds like maybe a technical correction bill should address it either way. To penalize someone for being unincorporated is nonsensical.
-
I honestly find it extremely hard to believe that is happening. It is as bad as it gets for an auditor to do the TPA work. Completely and utterly forbidden. Auditors require ethics training etc every year where they drill into the fiber of their being "thou shalt not audit thine own work." Independence is the WHOLE POINT of auditing. I suppose some small shop that audits 3 plans and does no other audit work might be making this stupid mistake, but not even a regional firm would be so... well, stupid. They would lose their license in a heartbeat if that ever came to light.
-
I can say that actually. [I'm not talking about some nuanced thing about a Schedule C. That's a tiny sliver of what matters here]
-
My point of course is that what I described would fit into anyone's definition of eligible retirement contributions. There is nothing aggressive about funding the same safe harbor match you have always funded just for the 8 week period. It is clearly what was intended.
-
I described it on the phone today that it is essentially like Brewster's Millions, where he had to spend the $30 Million to get $300 Million. Pretty much the same concept.
-
Something doesn;t feel quite right about jacking up a cash blance allocation 95% allocated to the owners in that 8 week window and applying it towards uncle sam forgiving a 6 or 7 figure loan. I just don;t think I could sleep at night taking such a position. Becuase things that seem to good to be true often turn out to be untrue, and because the PPP is already too good to be true (except of course it is) I have been advising to just fund what is customary for that business. If you always fund 10%, of pay, then fund 10% of the 8 weeks during the window. If you just do 3% Safe Harbor Nonelective, for several years running, then funding 10% during the 8 week window just feels a bit too aggressive for my blood. But I always tell my clients "if someone is adviing you an employer contribution is eligible, then I will run the calculation." Of all the things I am responsible for, determining eligiblity for a ppp loan forgiveness just is not one of them.
-
One of the most important lessons I ever learned was don;'t fight the system. No good will ever come of it.
-
Well Empower was one, and it was more closely related to their desire to be the first to market. Not sure what Fidelity did. Maybe Empower will add that enhancement, I definitely have clients who have been asking for it.
-
Word of caution - not all providers took the time to program in all that flexibility. And who can blame them they are going to hit the delete key on all this programming in 8 months. There are more than one where if your option is to add these full tilt or not at all and that's that.
-
There is no maximum auto escalate number on an EACA like there is on a QACA, is that right? So I could auto escalate to 20% if I wanted to?
-
A point of context here is that many providers did not even require the administrator to sign the form. So if the participant was lying they would never have known. Surely that has to change now.
-
We were all on the same page based on the law. But there have been "developments" in the form of published IRS guidance.
-
OK I give up. For those clients who say they know I'll tell them Larry Starr and Mike Preston say you're mistaken ?.
-
Well golly gee willikers that's my whole darn point. They know they;re lying! They know the person and they know none of these things has happened to them. Remember I am talking small business here. We know when someone has a cold for crying out loud. We would know if their wife had COVID.
-
Larry (and others I guess) your position baiscally boils down to it is impossible to have actual knowledge to the contrary even though the IRS bothered to clarify that actual knowledge to the contrary would be a basis for denail. Do I have that right?
-
I have a client where 75% of the staff was laid off/furloughed. Butt hen again 25% were not. So its not irrelevant in any event.
